+- +-

+- You

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+- Site Data

Members
Total Members: 87
Latest: brewski
New This Month: 2
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 112780
Total Topics: 4374
Most Online Today: 5
Most Online Ever: 55
(April 18, 2016, 06:09:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Poll

Who is your favorite SCOTUS Justice?

John Roberts
1 (100%)
Anthony Kennedy
0 (0%)
Clarence Thomas
0 (0%)
Ruth Baden Ginsburg
0 (0%)
Stephen Breyer
0 (0%)
Samuel Alito
0 (0%)
Sonia Sotomayor
0 (0%)
Elena Kagan
0 (0%)
Neil Gorsuch
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 1

Author Topic: The US Supreme Court Thread  (Read 394 times)

Charles Longboat Jr.

  • Wes Anderson
  • *********
  • Posts: 7180
  • Upon us all a little rain must fall
The US Supreme Court Thread
« on: June 11, 2018, 01:26:46 pm »
Since the Court is unveiling a lot of their termís decisions now, I thought itíd be an opportune time to discuss their implications (and whether weíll be happy if certain justices die or retire).

The Colorado baker case is currently the talk of the nation, having resulted in a 7-2 majority in favor of the baker. I personally think this was a reasonable decision. I understand that it skirts a very fine line between free expression and condoning discrimination (hence why I think there should be no law either way on the issue) the notion that one can be coerced into serving someone doesnít sit well with me at all.

Thereís also todayís 5-4 ruling that Ohioís voter purging policies donít violate federal voter laws. I still need to do some research there.

Social Buttons


ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2018, 07:55:45 pm »
Since the Court is unveiling a lot of their termís decisions now, I thought itíd be an opportune time to discuss their implications (and whether weíll be happy if certain justices die or retire).

The Colorado baker case is currently the talk of the nation, having resulted in a 7-2 majority in favor of the baker. I personally think this was a reasonable decision. I understand that it skirts a very fine line between free expression and condoning discrimination (hence why I think there should be no law either way on the issue) the notion that one can be coerced into serving someone doesnít sit well with me at all.

Thereís also todayís 5-4 ruling that Ohioís voter purging policies donít violate federal voter laws. I still need to do some research there.

And the Colorado baker decision was a very limited decision that doesn't really open the floodgates as some people seem to think.  It was really more of a referendum on the CCRC and their inability to stay neutral with respect to religion than a landmark decision against LGBTQ.

I haven't done research on the Ohio ruling either - largely because I vote every election so it's not going to really affect me much.

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6690
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2018, 08:40:57 pm »
Forcing bigots to serve gays effectively forces them to earn money. I'd rather let them be discriminatory, and then allow them to self-destruct through their unsustainable business practices.

Also, aren't like 80% of bakers fags anyway?

Charles Longboat Jr.

  • Wes Anderson
  • *********
  • Posts: 7180
  • Upon us all a little rain must fall
Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
« Reply #3 on: June 12, 2018, 12:36:34 am »
Forcing bigots to serve gays effectively forces them to earn money. I'd rather let them be discriminatory, and then allow them to self-destruct through their unsustainable business practices.

Also, aren't like 80% of bakers fags anyway?
The important distinction is that the baker was willing to sell the couple any other pastry with the exception of the wedding cake on account of his religious values. The refusal of service in this case was not from a deliberately malicious context but rather personal value, and therefore isnít the type of discrimination seen in, say, the Jim Crow era.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2018, 05:24:03 pm »
Forcing bigots to serve gays effectively forces them to earn money. I'd rather let them be discriminatory, and then allow them to self-destruct through their unsustainable business practices.

Also, aren't like 80% of bakers fags anyway?
The important distinction is that the baker was willing to sell the couple any other pastry with the exception of the wedding cake on account of his religious values. The refusal of service in this case was not from a deliberately malicious context but rather personal value, and therefore isnít the type of discrimination seen in, say, the Jim Crow era.

More than that - it was refusal to make a specific cake for the couple - and SCOUTS acknowledged cake-making as a form of art.  That acknowledgment was a big part of the ruling.  If they had refused to sell the couple an already made cake, that absolutely would have been discriminatory.  But making a brand new cake for an event that goes against his religious beliefs is what was the crux of the decision.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Charles Longboat Jr.

  • Wes Anderson
  • *********
  • Posts: 7180
  • Upon us all a little rain must fall
Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
« Reply #5 on: June 22, 2018, 07:49:57 pm »
In a 5-4 decision, the Court rules that "law enforcement in most cases has to obtain a warrant in order to search and seize long-term cell phone records that would show a person's location." Chief Justice Roberts and the Democrats made up the majority.
Informative Informative x 1 View List

Charles Longboat Jr.

  • Wes Anderson
  • *********
  • Posts: 7180
  • Upon us all a little rain must fall
Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
« Reply #6 on: June 26, 2018, 11:24:17 am »
So the Court has more or less upheld the Trump Travel Ban (presumably the one from September)
in a 5-4 decision. Chief Justice Robertís states that immigration regulation is within executive jurisdiction.

Also, they struck down part of the California Reproductivd FACT Act requiring non-licensed providers to post notices about their being unlicensed with regards to state funded family planning and abortion services. The First Amendment is invoked for this case in a 5-4 majority.

Too bad they keep kicking gerrymandering cases down the road.

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6690
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
« Reply #7 on: June 27, 2018, 02:39:27 pm »
Prepare for the greatest hissyfit the world has ever seen. You know what I'm talking about.

Robert Neville

  • God-King
  • Zack Snyder
  • **********
  • Posts: 1865
Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
« Reply #8 on: June 27, 2018, 03:39:23 pm »
I guess we'll finally see how well Dylan's claim that Trump wouldn't appoint justices who would overturn Roe vs. Wade holds up in practice.

Charles Longboat Jr.

  • Wes Anderson
  • *********
  • Posts: 7180
  • Upon us all a little rain must fall
Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
« Reply #9 on: June 27, 2018, 04:09:31 pm »
Prepare for the greatest hissyfit the world has ever seen. You know what I'm talking about.
Are we also going to see people mildly overjoyed at the news as a result of Citizens United, Heller v DC, and the Travel Ban?

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6690
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
« Reply #10 on: June 27, 2018, 05:21:30 pm »
Prepare for the greatest hissyfit the world has ever seen. You know what I'm talking about.
Are we also going to see people mildly overjoyed at the news as a result of Citizens United, Heller v DC, and the Travel Ban?

Maybe Paasche will be happy. But all three of those were fine decisions.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
« Reply #11 on: June 27, 2018, 09:16:35 pm »
Figured there would be a thread here.  I'm gonna throw my 2 cents in while I have the chance.

I believe that SCOTUS appointments should be delayed until after the midterms.  I believe this should be a rule - that within the final 6 months of a presidential or midterm election season, that no SCOTUS appointments be made.  Furthermore, outside of that 6 month window, there will be no delaying SCOTUS appointments by the "other side" whoever that may be.

Now, that being said, I am under no delusions that if the roles were reversed and the Dems had full control and the Reps were the minority party at all levels, the Dems would surely ram through "their guy" (much like the Reps will do now), and the Reps would whine and complain about how unfair it is (much like the Dems are already doing now).  Both sides are equally partisan hypocrites when it comes to this type of shit.

So, while I would certainly prefer a delay until after the midterms, I understand that the Reps will not delay just as the Dems would not delay if they had the ball.  We need a rule that fixes this ambiguous talking point, because I believe the newly elected officials should have a voice in this matter.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2018, 09:21:33 pm »
I guess we'll finally see how well Dylan's claim that Trump wouldn't appoint justices who would overturn Roe vs. Wade holds up in practice.

I never said that - don't misrepresent my point.  I never mentioned anything about WHO he would appoint to the Court.  I said (and maintain) that he wouldn't push the Court hard for Roe v Wade to be overturned.  A president can absolutely have influence on what gets heard at the SCOTUS level if he is aligned with the Court "in power" (meaning a Republican President with more conservatives on the bench or a Democratic President with more liberals on the bench).  If Ted Cruz was President and all the same justices were on the bench, he would push hard for the overturning of Roe v Wade every single day.  See, the SCOTUS has absolute discretion on which cases they hear - and a strong push from a similarly aligned president can (not always WILL mind you, but CAN) put cases to the top or bottom of the list. 

So, again, my point is that Trump would not push hard for the Court to overturn Roe v Wade.  If he does (and I don't mean mentioning it once in some road speech, I mean hammering it over and over), then I will stand completely corrected on the issue.

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6690
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2018, 10:05:32 pm »
Figured there would be a thread here.  I'm gonna throw my 2 cents in while I have the chance.

I believe that SCOTUS appointments should be delayed until after the midterms.  I believe this should be a rule - that within the final 6 months of a presidential or midterm election season, that no SCOTUS appointments be made.  Furthermore, outside of that 6 month window, there will be no delaying SCOTUS appointments by the "other side" whoever that may be.

Now, that being said, I am under no delusions that if the roles were reversed and the Dems had full control and the Reps were the minority party at all levels, the Dems would surely ram through "their guy" (much like the Reps will do now), and the Reps would whine and complain about how unfair it is (much like the Dems are already doing now).  Both sides are equally partisan hypocrites when it comes to this type of shit.

So, while I would certainly prefer a delay until after the midterms, I understand that the Reps will not delay just as the Dems would not delay if they had the ball.  We need a rule that fixes this ambiguous talking point, because I believe the newly elected officials should have a voice in this matter.

This is all based on a new "norm" that Mitch McConnell made up when it benefited him politically. Both parties rammed through their appointments all the time prior to 2016. There was nothing inherently wrong with that. But McConnell participated in some very low political trickery that exploited already-existing loopholes in an unprecedented way. It was not illegal, but it was some of the most dishonest conduct I've ever seen from a politician, and it's made all the more hypocritical by the current situation.

Thus, I don't think it's fair to pretend that the Dems are just as bad, or are "equally partisan hypocrites," because there's no evidence to support that claim. McConnell started this; they're simply responding.

Kale Pasta

  • God-King
  • David Lynch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4707
  • And the path was a circle, round and round
Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
« Reply #14 on: June 27, 2018, 10:34:38 pm »
Prepare for the greatest hissyfit the world has ever seen. You know what I'm talking about.
Are we also going to see people mildly overjoyed at the news as a result of Citizens United, Heller v DC, and the Travel Ban?

Maybe Paasche will be happy. But all three of those were fine decisions.
Citizens United is inexcusable but, for the record, I was not happy when Kennedy died. That was unique to Scalia, as I really felt (and continue to feel) that he was an evil man. I may have disagreed with Kennedy on many rulings, but I never hated him.

Kale Pasta

  • God-King
  • David Lynch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4707
  • And the path was a circle, round and round
Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
« Reply #15 on: June 27, 2018, 10:35:50 pm »
Figured there would be a thread here.  I'm gonna throw my 2 cents in while I have the chance.

I believe that SCOTUS appointments should be delayed until after the midterms.  I believe this should be a rule - that within the final 6 months of a presidential or midterm election season, that no SCOTUS appointments be made.  Furthermore, outside of that 6 month window, there will be no delaying SCOTUS appointments by the "other side" whoever that may be.

Now, that being said, I am under no delusions that if the roles were reversed and the Dems had full control and the Reps were the minority party at all levels, the Dems would surely ram through "their guy" (much like the Reps will do now), and the Reps would whine and complain about how unfair it is (much like the Dems are already doing now).  Both sides are equally partisan hypocrites when it comes to this type of shit.

So, while I would certainly prefer a delay until after the midterms, I understand that the Reps will not delay just as the Dems would not delay if they had the ball.  We need a rule that fixes this ambiguous talking point, because I believe the newly elected officials should have a voice in this matter.
I mean, this horseshit only started because the Republicans blocked the Garland nomination for over a year...

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6690
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
« Reply #16 on: June 27, 2018, 10:59:59 pm »
Prepare for the greatest hissyfit the world has ever seen. You know what I'm talking about.
Are we also going to see people mildly overjoyed at the news as a result of Citizens United, Heller v DC, and the Travel Ban?

Maybe Paasche will be happy. But all three of those were fine decisions.
Citizens United is inexcusable but, for the record, I was not happy when Kennedy died. That was unique to Scalia, as I really felt (and continue to feel) that he was an evil man. I may have disagreed with Kennedy on many rulings, but I never hated him.

Well, Citizens United basically just affirmed the right of private institutions to support candidates. Also, this comment is arguably more embarrassing than the Scalia incident.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
« Reply #17 on: June 27, 2018, 11:08:16 pm »
Figured there would be a thread here.  I'm gonna throw my 2 cents in while I have the chance.

I believe that SCOTUS appointments should be delayed until after the midterms.  I believe this should be a rule - that within the final 6 months of a presidential or midterm election season, that no SCOTUS appointments be made.  Furthermore, outside of that 6 month window, there will be no delaying SCOTUS appointments by the "other side" whoever that may be.

Now, that being said, I am under no delusions that if the roles were reversed and the Dems had full control and the Reps were the minority party at all levels, the Dems would surely ram through "their guy" (much like the Reps will do now), and the Reps would whine and complain about how unfair it is (much like the Dems are already doing now).  Both sides are equally partisan hypocrites when it comes to this type of shit.

So, while I would certainly prefer a delay until after the midterms, I understand that the Reps will not delay just as the Dems would not delay if they had the ball.  We need a rule that fixes this ambiguous talking point, because I believe the newly elected officials should have a voice in this matter.
I mean, this horseshit only started because the Republicans blocked the Garland nomination for over a year...

Of course you would think that...


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/22/biden_in_1992_bush_should_not_name_a_nominee_until_after_the_november_election.html

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6690
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
« Reply #18 on: June 27, 2018, 11:09:16 pm »
Figured there would be a thread here.  I'm gonna throw my 2 cents in while I have the chance.

I believe that SCOTUS appointments should be delayed until after the midterms.  I believe this should be a rule - that within the final 6 months of a presidential or midterm election season, that no SCOTUS appointments be made.  Furthermore, outside of that 6 month window, there will be no delaying SCOTUS appointments by the "other side" whoever that may be.

Now, that being said, I am under no delusions that if the roles were reversed and the Dems had full control and the Reps were the minority party at all levels, the Dems would surely ram through "their guy" (much like the Reps will do now), and the Reps would whine and complain about how unfair it is (much like the Dems are already doing now).  Both sides are equally partisan hypocrites when it comes to this type of shit.

So, while I would certainly prefer a delay until after the midterms, I understand that the Reps will not delay just as the Dems would not delay if they had the ball.  We need a rule that fixes this ambiguous talking point, because I believe the newly elected officials should have a voice in this matter.
I mean, this horseshit only started because the Republicans blocked the Garland nomination for over a year...

Of course you would think that...


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/22/biden_in_1992_bush_should_not_name_a_nominee_until_after_the_november_election.html

False. Equivalency.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
« Reply #19 on: June 27, 2018, 11:16:26 pm »
Figured there would be a thread here.  I'm gonna throw my 2 cents in while I have the chance.

I believe that SCOTUS appointments should be delayed until after the midterms.  I believe this should be a rule - that within the final 6 months of a presidential or midterm election season, that no SCOTUS appointments be made.  Furthermore, outside of that 6 month window, there will be no delaying SCOTUS appointments by the "other side" whoever that may be.

Now, that being said, I am under no delusions that if the roles were reversed and the Dems had full control and the Reps were the minority party at all levels, the Dems would surely ram through "their guy" (much like the Reps will do now), and the Reps would whine and complain about how unfair it is (much like the Dems are already doing now).  Both sides are equally partisan hypocrites when it comes to this type of shit.

So, while I would certainly prefer a delay until after the midterms, I understand that the Reps will not delay just as the Dems would not delay if they had the ball.  We need a rule that fixes this ambiguous talking point, because I believe the newly elected officials should have a voice in this matter.

This is all based on a new "norm" that Mitch McConnell made up when it benefited him politically. Both parties rammed through their appointments all the time prior to 2016. There was nothing inherently wrong with that. But McConnell participated in some very low political trickery that exploited already-existing loopholes in an unprecedented way. It was not illegal, but it was some of the most dishonest conduct I've ever seen from a politician, and it's made all the more hypocritical by the current situation.

Thus, I don't think it's fair to pretend that the Dems are just as bad, or are "equally partisan hypocrites," because there's no evidence to support that claim. McConnell started this; they're simply responding.

Not true.  There is PLENTY of evidence to support my claim.

Joe Biden called for NO SCOTUS appointment in an election year in 1992. 
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/22/biden_in_1992_bush_should_not_name_a_nominee_until_after_the_november_election.html

And Harry Reid was the one to end the filibuster for most of Obama's nominees.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-senate-nominees-idUSBRE9AK0V920131122


Both of these guys are Democrats obviously.  These are the two precedents that McConnell will use to ram through Trump's SCOTUS nomination. So for you to think that McConnell (a turd) is any worse than Reid (a turd) or Biden (a turd) in this aspect of politics is laughable.  I have provided EXACT proof of this with these 2 instances of the Democrats trumpeting the exact things the Republicans will now use against them.  There is no difference between what was contained in these two instances and what the Senate Republicans will do now.

To recap:  Biden called for no SCOTUS appointment in an election year when it benefited him, but then was all upset when the Senate wouldn't confirm Garland.  Reid eliminated the filibuster to appointees, but now Democrats are upset that the filibuster has been eliminated.  And you want to tell me that the Dems aren't just as bad?  GTFOH.  You're smarter than that.

 

+- Hot Threads

THE OFFICIAL MOVIE WATCHING THREAD by Charles Longboat Jr.
Today at 12:48:36 am

The Official Movie Trailer/TV Spot Watching Thread by Robert Neville
October 14, 2018, 05:26:22 pm

The Trump Presidency Thread by Robert Neville
October 09, 2018, 05:27:33 pm

2018 Standings by Crohn's Boy
October 07, 2018, 11:13:25 am

Khabib vs. Conor fight by Robert Neville
October 07, 2018, 07:15:48 am

Another reason why SEC is so embarrassing... by The One Who Lurks
October 06, 2018, 07:21:54 pm

What song are you listening to - Part II by Charles Longboat Jr.
September 29, 2018, 09:36:30 pm

2 Fudge 2 Knuckle by Jim Raynor Remastered
September 29, 2018, 03:34:00 pm

Book Thread. What are you reading? by Tut
September 26, 2018, 11:40:42 pm

MWO Movie News, a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company by Charles Longboat Jr.
September 20, 2018, 07:51:25 pm

Whats your take on movie crowdfunding? by Robert Neville
September 16, 2018, 07:23:03 am

Consensus XXXIII: Netflicks Moovys by Crohn's Boy
September 14, 2018, 04:06:15 pm

THE SCHOOL THREAD! by Tut
September 07, 2018, 04:43:28 pm

Favorite videogame cutscenes by Robert Neville
September 06, 2018, 02:55:25 pm

The US Supreme Court Thread by Charles Longboat Jr.
September 04, 2018, 03:02:07 pm